It took some time before the government issued its decision to send anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. That’s understandable. This is not an easy choice. But it’s the right thing to do right now.
–
This is a leader. The leader expresses VG’s attitude. VG’s political editor is responsible for the leader.
—-
Throughout most of the post-war period, the Norwegian line has been that we should not send weapons to war zones. A law from 1959 has laid down guidelines for this practice. The law is well reasoned. With our border with Russia, which during the Cold War was the border with the Soviet Union, we are in a special position.
Throughout these years, the Norwegian-Russian border has been NATO’s border in the north. Norway has had to balance clear deterrence against a well-functioning cooperation with a demanding neighbor. We have had self-imposed restrictions, which other NATO countries have not had, such as the ban on nuclear weapons and foreign forces on Norwegian soil. The goal has been to calm and deter at the same time.
Will Norway become a co-warrior?
This has been a sensible policy, which has served us well. This also applies to the law from 1959, on weapons for war zones. Both the law itself, and various decisions and interpretations in retrospect, allow for exceptions. The decision to send weapons to Ukraine, therefore, does not need to change on this line.
Among international law experts, opinions that Norway sends weapons to Ukraine are divided. Will Norway become a so-called co-warrior by sending weapons? Or are we not? Are we becoming more vulnerable to various forms of attack – and will we get weaker protection from our allies because we have sent weapons to an area where there is war?